Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:47 am    Post subject: Finding Allies in the 'War on Terror' Reply with quote

One of the surprising facts of the current 'War on Terror' is that most Canadians outside the conservative blogosphere aren't aware there is one. They think, according to the polls, the war is largely a creation of the Bush administration and further that if only we got out of Iraq and Afghanistan -- and presumably if Israel disappeared somehow -- then all would be well.

OK, so we know this is delusional and that the war was actually launched by Islamofascists and is now in full swing. The occupant of the White House is incidental to the fact that militant Islam is on a world-wide Jihad. Meanwhile, Candians are still concerned with television shows, back to school shopping and, in BC, the fire situation.

Why the disconnect? I think it's because of numbers; there simply aren't enough aware individuals in the country. We're screaming but there aren't enough of us. We need allies.

I have a post over at my own blog, mesopotamia west, that suggests the only way to counter small-scale terrorist acts -- like the recent pedestrian bashing in San Francisco -- is to use the Israeli tactic of arming civilians. This raises the possibility that there is a quite large constituency that could join the anti-Jihad group, namely Canadian and American gun owners.

I read gun magazines, talk to gun owners, vist the local range and I can say that by-and-large Canadian gun owners are in a heads-down mentality at the moment. They have been attacked so often by so many -- Mayor David Miller comes to mind -- that they have adopted a defensive position politically. They certainly have not been speaking out on the terrorism issue.

We could change that. The blogosphere could first of all examine its attitude towards the private ownership of guns. It could review the history in Israel, which made a big change when it had to. It could start being a little more friendly towards the Canadian Firearms Association and the National Rifle Association.

More particularly, members of the conservative blogosphere -- this means you -- could start the lengthy process (in Canada) of getting a Posession and Acquisition Licence. I could go on, but I'll stop there for the moment. The anti-Jihad forces need allies: I've just suggested where we can find some.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The speculation is that the first salvo was fired in Iran, during the Carter administration. At the time, the West underestimated the seriousness of the situation.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea of thousands of (very well informed) people training with guns so they can be the local "anti-Jihad" force sounds like a well-thought idea that will not lead to unwarranted deaths, but will rather lead to a new era of peace and stability.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The speculation is that the first salvo was fired in Iran, during the Carter administration. At the time, the West underestimated the seriousness of the situation.
Explain what the "first salvo" was, and how terrorist attacks (or outright military conflicts) before this somehow were uncomparable or otherwise not epoch-making.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because the Iran hostage taking humbled the US. They did not respond militarily, and it was interpreted as weakness.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, they did respond militarily. They launched a military rescue mission which failed. They also encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, which he did early in 1980. The new Reagan administration then continued to support Hussein against Iran, although of course it also secretly sold Iran surface-to-surface missiles. The US did strike a few blows for freedom, like when they blew up a full civilian airliner. The whole war was very long and costly. Iraq eventually decided to try to expand towards the south instead.
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:06 pm    Post subject: A Well Thought Out Idea Reply with quote

Hey, this is your statement, not mine:

Donald Hughes wrote:
The idea of thousands of (very well informed) people training with guns so they can be the local "anti-Jihad" force sounds like a well-thought idea that will not lead to unwarranted deaths, but will rather lead to a new era of peace and stability.


What I said was that the interests of gun owners in Canada and the United States are more closely in line with those of us in the Conservative blogosphere than most people think. On the sarcastic point you tried to make; the facts are that in Israel, where small-scale Jihad 'operations' are a weekly occurrence, privately owned weapons have often brought incidents to an end.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The state has a monopoly on violence, that is pretty basic to society. If the citizens percieve the state as unwilling or unable to protect them though, that is when you start seeing militias being formed, and people doing their own law enforcement.
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did I argue for the creation of private militias? No.

kwlafayette wrote:
The state has a monopoly on violence, that is pretty basic to society. If the citizens percieve the state as unwilling or unable to protect them though, that is when you start seeing militias being formed, and people doing their own law enforcement.


I realize this is hard for many conservative bloggers to get their collective minds around, but the state which allows licenced gun owners to carry their weapons in public is one that is pretty secure in its citizens. I point again to the current law in Israel which allows citizens (who are first vetted) to carry weapons. Is Israel running amok with private armies? No. Is Switzerland? No. Sweden? No. All have more weaons in the hands of citizens than we have here in Canada.

Just as important is the <b>reason Israel changed the law</B> which was that relying exclusively on the police and army wasn't enough. There simply weren't enough policemen and soldiers. This is a fact which the Islamic militants in our midst are eventually going to realize.

In fact it's far worse in Canada than in most countries because we have so few police relative to our population and geography. So, let's put some of our fixed concepts on the side and think about this for a change.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
The speculation is that the first salvo was fired in Iran, during the Carter administration. At the time, the West underestimated the seriousness of the situation.


And Reagan also bowed down when Marines were massacres in Lebanon in 1983
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I only used the term 'war on terror' as a convenience; the actual war is, of course, the one initiated by Muhammud around 600 AD that reached two high water marks; first at the Battle of Tours, in 732 and second at Battle of Vienna in 1683, before Islam began a long decline.

Anyone who thinks the West generally, or the United States in partricular, had anything to do with the current revitalization of Islam has been reading too many pronouncements by Osama bin Laden.

Anyway, let's put when it started aside; I was trying to discuss the potential benefit to conservative boggers of enlisting the support of the gun-owning community. I have a much longer post on this here .

It seems to me those of us who oppose the rise of militant Islam and the introduction of Sharia law, have a lot in common with those in the gun community who believe in the need for personal weapons for self-defence. As Israel found out, and as we are finding out in Canada and the United States, it is unreasonable to expect a policeman to be standing by every time a Jihadist feels the need to kill some infidels.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fhilliard -

I think what you proposed would be a very innovative and effective way to help guard against these smaller rampage-type attacks - as well as criminality in general. Unfortunately, I fear we must acknowledge that an unfortunate majority of Canadians have an unreasonable fear of firearms themselves, and your proposal could never come to pass.

Something more reasonable, or, something to be used as a stepping stone to that, would be permitting (or preferrably, requiring) 'off-duty' police officers (and later, border guards) to carry their firearms at all times. This would have the effect of instantly doubling or tripling the number of trained individuals out on the street at any given time.

Regarding gaining vocal/formall support from the gun lobby, the biggest problem is optics. I'm on the fringes of that group myself, and we're not generally regarded as the most reasonable people around (which is unfair). It wouldn't suprise me if 90 - 95% of firearms enthusiasts were already backing the Conservatives anyways...
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I think what you proposed would be a very innovative and effective way to help guard against these smaller rampage-type attacks - as well as criminality in general. Unfortunately, I fear we must acknowledge that an unfortunate majority of Canadians have an unreasonable fear of firearms themselves, and your proposal could never come to pass.

Something more reasonable, or, something to be used as a stepping stone to that, would be permitting (or preferrably, requiring) 'off-duty' police officers (and later, border guards) to carry their firearms at all times. This would have the effect of instantly doubling or tripling the number of trained individuals out on the street at any given time.

Regarding gaining vocal/formall support from the gun lobby, the biggest problem is optics. I'm on the fringes of that group myself, and we're not generally regarded as the most reasonable people around (which is unfair). It wouldn't suprise me if 90 - 95% of firearms enthusiasts were already backing the Conservatives anyways...


I think you're right, it is optics, but the same situation existed in Israel before the Maalot massacre and that dramatically changed the Israeli public's mind on carrying weapons. Since I feel the Islamists will do here what they've done elsewhere, I think we can expect a school take-over in Canada within the next couple of years. After that, we'll see if the Canadian public wakes up. Your other idea is a good one; by all means police, auxiliary police, border guards, Brinks guards, and other trained individuals should carry their firearms off duty.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:27 am    Post subject: keep the people afraid? Reply with quote

The "war on terror" is a sad sad joke on the citizens to make us think we need the government's protection. You have a greater chance of winning the lottery than getting killed by a terrorist. There is about a 10,000 times greater chance of being killed in a car accident or struck by lightening than being the victim of terrorism. It's pathetic really the way some people are so willing to give up their privacy and civil liberties for some false sense of safety that the government can't even provide. It is another unwinnable war designed to be never ending like the ridiculous war on plants being forced on the rest of the world by the US government. I was a member of the young conservative party when I was a teenager and even voted reform once, but I will never support the "suppositories" as long as they support continued prohibition. I am a Libertarian capitalist forced to vote NDP, because they are the current champions of civil liberties in Canada. It was the cons that ended alcohol prohibition so it makes no sense to me that they are the only party that still is gung ho for cannabis prohibition. It saddens me to see the party taken over by christion fundamentalists, who can't seem to differentiate between vices and crimes. It is idiotic to cage people over Cannabis when alcohol is vastly more dangerous and cigarettes are legal and way more unhealthy. If the cons want my vote back and ANY respect from freedom loving Canadians they will protect Canadian soveriegnty by refusing the extradition of Marc Emery, Greg Williams and Michelle Rainey, and put forth sensible drug policies, instead of emulating the gestapo like failed prohibition advocated by the idiots in the white house.
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:11 pm    Post subject: Re: keep the people afraid? Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
The "war on terror" is a sad sad joke on the citizens to make us think we need the government's protection. You have a greater chance of winning the lottery than getting killed by a terrorist. There is about a 10,000 times greater chance of being killed in a car accident or struck by lightening than being the victim of terrorism. It's pathetic really the way some people are so willing to give up their privacy and civil liberties for some false sense of safety that the government can't even provide. It is another unwinnable war designed to be never ending like the ridiculous war on plants being forced on the rest of the world by the US government...


DrGreenthumb wrote:
If the cons want my vote back and ANY respect from freedom loving Canadians they will protect Canadian soveriegnty by refusing the extradition of Marc Emery, Greg Williams and Michelle Rainey, and put forth sensible drug policies, instead of emulating the gestapo like failed prohibition advocated by the idiots in the white house.


Two points. I agree absolutely with you that drugs (recreational and hard) should be legalized, licenced and taxed; just like booze. Outlawing drugs (all of which used to be legal, including Heroin, Cocaine, etc.) is plain nuts. Unless and until human psychology changes, we're all drug users.

However, I disagree absolutely that the 'war on terror' is a concoction of the White House, and that it's unwinable. Militant Islam doesn't give two pins who's in the US Presidency, as you will find out after the next election. It is opposed to all forms of civil liberties, women's rights, freedom of the press, sexual freedom, etc. etc. and it wants to impose 7th Century Sharia law on us all. I would ask you, urge you, to separate your distain for President Bush from the issue of Islam.

In the meantime, I'll happily sign any pro-drug legalization petition you pass around. :)
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Finding Allies in the 'War on Terror'

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB